03-28-2008, 11:40 AM
emayer wrote:
Well, this is an interesting one. They're not bringing the suit under Federal law, but State law. Their argument comes down to the "separate but equal" argument that was used to segregate schools by race in previous years.
They're saying that the FL State Constitution requires the state to provide “uniform, efficient, safe, secure, and high quality�? education, but according to the data they quote in the lawsuit Palm Beach County has a track record of low graduation rates when compared to other areas of the state. It is also apparently even worse in centers of non-white population. Additionally, they are stating that the County is fudging their graduation numbers to include kids that do not actually graduate and receive a diploma.
So, the logic goes like this: Palm Beach County is fudging their graduation numbers, they are an area of non-white population and their graduation rates are lower than the rest of the state. By that reckoning the state is failing to provide a reasonable quality of education (back to the discussion we were having earlier) and is failing the children of the county. In filing the suit the ACLU is attempting to get the state to acknowledge the issues in the county and fix them.
I can see where they're coming from and it's a laudable cause. Sometimes you file a suit to make a point that a law isn't being adhered to - this could be one of those cases where the suit was filed to make a point and a settlement will happen that will result in improved quality of education, rather than a finding of fault against the county. It will be interesting to see how this one goes.
Here's an article from the Palm Beach Post that gives more details:
http://www.palmbeachpost.com/localnews/c...usuit.html
As for the quote on shifting policy, I've always interpreted that to mean that they will file lawsuits to ensure that public policy remains constitutional and if public policy is unlawful, then attempt to change it... examples might be keeping government funding away from religion (still working on that one!), or modifying Affirmative Action policies that break the law. Does that makes sense?
Now back to your quote about "The ACLU advocates for the rights of immigrants, refugees and non-citizens, challenging unconstitutional laws and practices and the myths upon which these unfair laws are based." - that I can only interpret (unless you have an example) to mean that they will work to ensure that those groups are protected under the Constitution when discriminated against - remember that EVERYONE, regardless of citizenship and residency status is protected under the Constitution - the second you step into the country, then you're protected, even if here illegally. Sometimes law enforcement or government forgets that the Constitution applies to those people also.
Quote:Thanks for the info (I actually fogot the Limbaugh action which was quite publicized). The ACLU continues to provide a valuable service protecting our constitutional freedoms, perhaps I should have defined my earlier statements more clearly by saying the extent to which the constitution is interpreted needs to be questioned in some of the ACLU's activities. Below is the link regarding the Palm Beach FL suit:
http://www.aclu.org/racialjustice/edu/34...80318.html
Additionally, another statement I copied from the ACLU site:
"The actions listed below are meaningful ways of raising public awareness and shifting policy. They can be undertaken by individuals or groups of interested people."
The quote was taken from an ACLU primer on how to engage in public discourse, relate to elected officials, etc. In and of itself a commendable idea, but the portion I emboldened suggests more than defending the constitution- it implys altering that which already exists. To "shift policy" engenders a philisophical disagreement with the law rather than its constitutional compliance.
Well, this is an interesting one. They're not bringing the suit under Federal law, but State law. Their argument comes down to the "separate but equal" argument that was used to segregate schools by race in previous years.
They're saying that the FL State Constitution requires the state to provide “uniform, efficient, safe, secure, and high quality�? education, but according to the data they quote in the lawsuit Palm Beach County has a track record of low graduation rates when compared to other areas of the state. It is also apparently even worse in centers of non-white population. Additionally, they are stating that the County is fudging their graduation numbers to include kids that do not actually graduate and receive a diploma.
So, the logic goes like this: Palm Beach County is fudging their graduation numbers, they are an area of non-white population and their graduation rates are lower than the rest of the state. By that reckoning the state is failing to provide a reasonable quality of education (back to the discussion we were having earlier) and is failing the children of the county. In filing the suit the ACLU is attempting to get the state to acknowledge the issues in the county and fix them.
I can see where they're coming from and it's a laudable cause. Sometimes you file a suit to make a point that a law isn't being adhered to - this could be one of those cases where the suit was filed to make a point and a settlement will happen that will result in improved quality of education, rather than a finding of fault against the county. It will be interesting to see how this one goes.
Here's an article from the Palm Beach Post that gives more details:
http://www.palmbeachpost.com/localnews/c...usuit.html
As for the quote on shifting policy, I've always interpreted that to mean that they will file lawsuits to ensure that public policy remains constitutional and if public policy is unlawful, then attempt to change it... examples might be keeping government funding away from religion (still working on that one!), or modifying Affirmative Action policies that break the law. Does that makes sense?
Now back to your quote about "The ACLU advocates for the rights of immigrants, refugees and non-citizens, challenging unconstitutional laws and practices and the myths upon which these unfair laws are based." - that I can only interpret (unless you have an example) to mean that they will work to ensure that those groups are protected under the Constitution when discriminated against - remember that EVERYONE, regardless of citizenship and residency status is protected under the Constitution - the second you step into the country, then you're protected, even if here illegally. Sometimes law enforcement or government forgets that the Constitution applies to those people also.
Well 'ard: British Slang. Very Tough. Very Good.
Life is too short to travel in the slow lane.
Life is too short to travel in the slow lane.